1998-2000: LAWSUIT AGAINST GENE CISEWSKI

http://www.dehnbase.org/lpus/library/misc/Cisewski-review.html
MEMORANDUM

 To:   Libertarian Party
 From:   Bill Hall
 Date:      June 29, 2000
 Re:      Facts Surrounding Lawsuit by Libertarian National Committee Against Gene Cisewski, The Liberty
      Council and Monticello Group, Inc.

Many Libertarian Party members have asked questions concerning the facts surrounding the lawsuit by the
Libertarian National Committee against Gene Cisewski, and his companies, The Liberty Council and Monticello
Group, Inc., for their misuse of the Libertarian Party mailing list. At the time the lawsuit was originally filed, the
LNC took great pains not to publicize the lawsuit, out of respect for Gene Cisewski's reputation in the Libertarian
Party, and in an effort to give him every benefit of the doubt. However, now that the lawsuit has concluded and
Gene Cisewski has admitted wrongdoing, I have prepared this synopsis at the request of the LNC to explain, in
detail, the factual basis behind the lawsuit.

As noted in the complaint filed in the lawsuit against Cisewski, the Libertarian Party has spent more than a million
dollars over many years, more than $500,000 in the past 3 years alone, building a database of the names and
addresses of more than 200,000 members, contributors and interested parties. While the value of the mailing list
is primarily for internal use, occasionally we rent all or part of the list to others, provided they agree to: (1) use the
list only once, and keep it confidential; (2) allow us to pre-approve the content of all mailings to our list; and (3)
only mail on a date pre-approved by us. These requirements are embodied in written agreements, and are
designed to preserve the value of the list for our internal use. Prior to 1997, a user of our list violated its
agreement by sending a mailing not pre-approved by us, so we banned that user from ever renting our list again.
In other words, our policy was to give no second chances to persons who misused our list.

In dealing with Gene Cisewski we broke this rule. Gene Cisewski was a political consultant to Libertarian
candidates and organizations, and his livelihood depended in part on being able to rent our mailing list. In 1997,
and until the July, 1998, national convention, he was a member of the Libertarian National Committee, and thus in
a trusted position within the Libertarian Party. As noted below, he violated our mailing list policies a number of
times. We suspected for some time that he was misusing our list. However, we gave him every benefit of the
doubt, until we caught him red-handed. Even then, the LNC filed suit against Gene Cisewski only afier many
attempts to work out the dispute voluntarily, and on an amicable basis, failed.

Some people have suggested that the dispute should have been submitted to arbitration. However, it takes the
agreement and cooperation of both parties to submit a matter to binding arbitration. As noted below, prior to and
during the course of the lawsuit, Cisewski repeatedly broke his promises to us as to what he would do and when
he would do it. I believe the primary reason the matter was ever resolved was that Cisewski faced the threat that
the Court would find him in contempt if he too blatantly violated its rules. Under these circumstances, arbitration
would have been a waste of time.

The LNC asked that I prepare this memo in order to outline the facts behind this sorry state of affairs.

SYNOPSIS

 1997
           The Monticello Group handled the first mailing to the Libertarian Party mailing list for the Murray
           Sabrin for Governor campaign. Despite a signed agreement with the candidate, a copy ofthe list
           was retained, and used again twice. Neither the reuse nor the copy were pre-approved, as
           required by the contract, though the campaign later did pay for the unauthorized uses. Despite
           verbal instructions to and agreement with the mail house, the disks containing the list were returned
           to Monticello Group instead of LPHQ.
 Fall 1997
           The Liberty Council made a mailing to Libertarian Party members which appeared to use the LP
           mailing list. Several LP members contacted LPHQ and inquired as to why the LP was sending
           them the Liberty Council mailing, and at least one (Bruce Hoepner of Michigan) insisted that only
           the LP had the particular address at which that member received the Liberty Council mailing.
           Persons who were on the LP mailing list with "do not mail" flags (e.g., Steve Dasbach and Joe
           Hauptmann of Indiana) did not receive the mailing, even though their names were on other
           libertarian-oriented mailing lists.
 Fall 1997
           In response to the Liberty Council mailing, Ron Crickenberger contacted Cisewski and asked
           whether he mistakenly made a mailing to the LP mailing list. Cisewski insisted he had not.
 Fall 1997
           In reaction to the building circumstantial evidence that Gene Cisewski was misusing the LP mailing
          list, and as a general exercise of caution with a valuable asset, the LP list was "seeded" with a few
           fictitious names, at addresses of persons associated with LPHQ.
 11-12/97
           The Monticello Group handled a prospecting mailing for the Institute for Humane Studies. For this
           mailing, copy was submitted for approval, as agreed by Gene Cisewski in a letter dated
           November 24, 1997. But the Monticello Group then used two different letters, one of which was
           not pre-approved, and expressly appealed to the recipient's connection to the LP. This time, even
           with written instructions to the mailhouse, and a follow up phone call to confirm this, the disks
           containing the mailing list were mysteriously returned to the Monticello Group, and not LPHQ.
 12/13/97
           Gene Cisewski is publicly confronted at the LNC meeting in Washington, DC, regarding the
           Sabrin mailings. He swears that he was not deliberately misusing the LP mailing list, and that the
           unauthorized uses were unintended oversights or miscommunications.
 Early 1998
           The Monticello Group worked for the Steve Kubby for Governor campaign. At a time when the
           Kubby Campaign had not rented the LP mailing list, a mailing (confirmed by Jackie Bradbury, as
           being approximately 5,000 California recipients, the same size as the number of California
           addressees on the LP mailing list) was sent to LP members, and at least one (Aaron Starr of
           California) insisted that only the LPHQ had the particular address at which he received the Kubby
           campaign mailing.
 1998
           Liberty Council makes a mailing (Cisewski tells BetteRose Smith, to a list of more than 500 in
           Colorado) promoting his Colorado Victory 2000 seminar. It is received by a number of people
           who believe their names only appear on the LP mailing list, and the state chair, who believes only
           LPHQ has the address at which she received the mailing.
 9-10/98
           One of our mailing list seeds ("Robert Johnson" - alias LPHQ employee and DCLP Chair Daniel
           Smith) receives a mailing from the Liberty Council, providing conclusive evidence of what we had
           suspected for quite some time, that Cisewski had copied and was using our mailing list. The
           "Robert Johnson" name was never used by Smith for any other reason, other than as an LPHQ
           "seed."
 11/3/98
           We hire independent counsel in Washington, DC, Doug Herbert (recommended by Clint Bolick of
           the Institute for Justice), to evaluate our claim. He concludes we have a good case against
           Cisewski for misappropriation of our mailing list.
 11/17/98
           Herbert writes Cisewski, setting forth the circumstantial evidence, and proposing that Cisewski,
           Herbert and Crickenberger meet so Cisewski can explain how it might have happened. Herbert
           proposes several dates through 12/1/98. Cisewski fails to respond.
 12/1/98
           Herbert leaves voice message for Cisewski, asking why no response, and stating that if no
           response is received by end of the day, Herbert will assume Cisewski has no desire to meet.
 12/1/98
           Cisewski calls Herbert, saying he sent a response letter yesterday, and promising to meet once
           Herbert had responded to his letter.
 12/1/98
           Herbert receives Cisewski's letter, which denies any wrongdoing, claims any mailing by him to a
           "seed" is either due to the LNC's incompetence in maintaining its "seeds" or fabricated for political
           reasons. Cisewski gives no further explanation for the "seed". Cisewski asks that we turn over all
           evidence of the "seed" so he can investigate the situation.
 12/2/98
           Herbert writes Cisewski, suggesting available dates for a meeting prior to the 12/12/98 LNC
           meeting, at which the parties will disclose their documents and files to one another.
 12/11/98
           Cisewski writes Herbert, refusing to meet and stating that he is retaining counsel, who should be
           contacting Herbert within the next week or so. Neither Cisewski nor an attorney representing him
           responds.
 12/12/98
           LNC votes unanimously to file suit against Cisewski if further efforts toward voluntary settlement
           fail.
[NOTE: The resolution at http://archive.lp.org/lnc/lnc981212.min.html  does not mention the option of voluntary settlement.]

 2/12/99
           We file suit against Cisewski in Washington DC Superior Court for breach of fiduciary duty,
           fraud, breach of contract and misappropriation of a trade secret.
 2/17/99
           Copy of lawsuit served on Cisewski. Under the Court rules, Cisewski must file an answer by
           3/9/99.
 3/3/99
           Herbert files requests that Cisewski produce documents and answer written questions with
           respect to the factual background surrounding the lawsuit. Under the Court rules, Cisewski must
           respond by 4/5/99.
 3/9/99
           Cisewski fails to file an answer to our lawsuit. Instead, he files a motion with the Court requesting
           a 30 day extension to file an answer. His request violates the Court rule which says a 20 day
           extension may be given, if he first contacts us and we agree. We decide to take it easy on him and
           not to respond, effectively giving him the requested 30 day extension.
 3/22/99
           Cisewski and Dasbach meet for lunch, to try to resolve the matter. Cisewski denies any
           wrongdoing and promises to provide relevant information. Dasbach makes no promises regarding
           lawsuit.
 3/30/99
           Cisewski writes Dasbach, enclosing two invoices he says were from mailing house for Liberty
           Council mailing which included "seed." [and thus, he claims, evidence of size of mailing made.]
 4/5/99
           Cisewski fails to respond to requests for documents and information, as required by Court rules.
 4/8/99
           Cisewski fails to file an answer to our complaint, as he promised. We decide to give him further
           time to respond by delaying action to enter a default judgment.
 4/22/99
           Herbert writes Cisewski, advising him we will ask the Court to enter a default judgment against
           him because he failed to answer, and an order compelling him to answer our requests for
           documents and information.
 5/3/99
           Herbert is contacted by Bruce Godfrey, a Maryland attorney who claims he is 'about to be hired'
           by Cisewski, and requests a one week extension to file an answer to our complaint and provide
           the documents and information requested. We grant his request.
 5/10/99
           Godfrey fails to file the answer or provide the documents and information, as promised.
 5/11/99
           Godfrey calls and says he will file the answer 'right away' and asks for a 3 week extension to
           respond to requests for documents and information.
 5/12/99
           Godfrey faxes to Herbert a 'draft' answer and writes that it will be signed and delivered at the
           initial conference with the Judge on May 14.
 5/13/99
           Herbert writes Godfrey, agreeing to the requested extension (until 6/1/99) to provide documents
           and information.
 5/14/99
           At the initial conference, the Judge had clearly read the file and pleadings (usually not the case),
           asked why Cisewski failed to answer (was told answer was filed that morning). Set a schedule for
           completion of discovery by 9/14/99, filing of all dispositive motions by 10/29/99 and a trial in 2 or
           3/2000. Godfrey agrees informally that he will 'beat' the 6/1/99 deadline for providing documents
           and information. [Answer filed varied materially from 'draft' provided on 5/12/99 by Godfrey,
           which Godfrey represented to be 'the answer.']
 6/1/99
           Godfrey fails to respond to requests for documents and information, as promised.
 6/4/99
           Herbert's associate, Mary Chlopecki, calls Godfrey for an explanation. He first claims Cisewski
           was out of town, causing a delay. Next he claimed the responses were drafted, but just not signed
           by Cisewski. Finally, he claimed he would draft the responses soon. Godfrey agrees to meet with
           Herbert for a discovery conference (required by Court rule before we could ask the Court to
           compel production of documents and information) on 6/9/99, at which he promises he will
           produce the requested documents and information.
 6/9/99
           Godfrey calls Herbert, asking to postpone meeting he promised for several days. Says Cisewski
           only gave him documents and information the night before, at 9p.m., Godfrey stayed up all night
           working with them, and is so sleepy he is afraid to drive to Herbert's office. Herbert insists on
           meeting 6/10/99.
 6/10/99
           Godfrey delivers largely incomplete and unresponsive responses to our requests for documents
           and information. At the same time, he serves requests for documents and information which go far
           beyond the scope of the lawsuit, specifically seeking information regarding details of the
           Archimedes project, contractual and other "self-dealing" relationships between the LNC and
           Harry Browne and officers, employees, volunteers and members of the LNC. Herbert and
           Godfrey discuss and agree in principle on a 'deal' which would permit both parties full access to
           the other's documents.
 6/29/99
           Herbert and Godfrey talk, fleshing out the 'deal' as one which would limit disclosure of all
           documents deemed confidential by the parties to their attorneys (specifically including any
           information regarding the income and expenditures of Cisewski, Monticello Group and Liberty
           Council), and would permit the attorneys for each party to visit the offices of the other, and review
           all relevant documents. Herbert writes Godfrey, proposing a form of protective order to be
           entered by the Court, which will implement the deal.
 6/30/99
           Godfrey agrees to protective order in principle, and asks Herbert to revise the form provided to
           apply to our situation.
 7/99
           Cisewski sends a memo to the LNC, denying any wrongdoing and proposing that the dispute be
           submitted to binding arbitration. We do not accept his offer, viewing it as yet another stall tactic,
           and a ploy to avoid the production by him of any documents or other evidence. Unlike a lawsuit,
           arbitration would not require that he provide those documents or evidence.
 7/14/99
           Herbert subpoenas relevant documents from Cisewski's mailing house, and schedules deposition
           of mailing house employee for 8/25/99. Herbert schedules deposition of Cisewski for 8/31/99.
 7/20/99
           Herbert writes Godfrey, enclosing protective order agreement for Godfrey's review and signature
           by Cisewski. [To address Cisewski's claim that we might review his records, and then somehow
           pick a person in his database and claim that person is the "seed," we agreed to place the "seed's"
           name in a sealed envelope for signature by Godfrey when Herbert arrives to review Cisewski's
           database. We will then retain the sealed envelope until we are required to respond to Cisewski's
           request for documents and information on 8/27/99.]
 7/23/99
           Godfrey calls Herbert, saying Cisewski will sign protective order agreement, but needs 'a few
           days' to gather documents.
 7/26/99
           Herbert calls Godfrey to coordinate signing, and Godfrey tells Herbert Cisewski changed his
           mind, and plans to produce copies of documents withheld instead (even though request for
           information requires review of databases).
 8/2/99
           Godfrey calls Herbert and advises Herbert that Godfrey persuaded Cisewski to sign protective
           order agreement. Herbert scheduled to visit Cisewski's office and review documents on 8/11/99.
 8/3/99
           Herbert receives from Godfrey copies of some requested documents, and the signed protective
           order agreement. As requested by Godfrey, Herbert files motion to add Bill Hall as counsel to
           case, so Hall will be bound by confidentiality provisions of protective order agreement. We agree,
           as a gesture of goodwill, to expedite provision of some ofthe documents and information
           requested of the LNC, by delivering those early, on or before 8/11/99.
 8/10/99
           Godfrey calls Chlopecki and advises Chlopecki that Cisewski left a message for Godfrey that
           Cisewski is ill, and thus Herbert's scheduled visit Cisewski's office to review documents on
           8/11/99 must be canceled.
 8/11/99
           Herbert calls Godfrey and Godfrey advises that Cisewski will not produce the documents.
           Godfrey suggests that the only way Cisewski will comply is if Herbert obtains a Court order to
           compel Cisewski to comply with our request for information and documents. Herbert is reluctant
           to do so, absent a final attempt to reschedule his visit to Cisewski's office. Herbert insists that
           Godfrey ask to reschedule his visit to Cisewski's office for 8/12/99. Godfrey leaves a message in
           response, saying Cisewski says his Doctor says the meeting must be on Monday, 8/16/99 (a date
           which Cisewski knows Herbert is on a one week vacation). Herbert is reluctant to agree to
           8/16/99 because he does not want to cancel his vacation, and though he could send Chlopecki,
           she is not computer literate enough to tell if Cisewski is providing free access to his computer
           records.
 8/12/99
           Herbert contacts Godfrey, suggesting rescheduling for Wednesday, 8/18/99, when Chlopecki and
           Herbert's computer literate son can make the visit. Godfrey says no, but agrees to reschedule
           document production for 8/23/99, when Herbert is available.
 8/23/99
           Cisewski cancels document production. Eventually, Cisewski agrees to document production.
           Upon visiting Cisewski's apartment to view documents, Cisewski advises him that his computer
           recently crashed, destroying all relevant e-mail messages and data other than a small mailing list
           which does not contain the "seed." In addition, Cisewski reveals that he has, as a matter of
           standard practice, destroyed virtually all written records for years prior to 1999.
 8/25/99
           Chlopecki deposes employee of mailing house, CSI, who denies any memory of anything. CSI
           produces four invoices in response to subpoena, none of which match the invoices provided by
           Cisewski in April, as those for the Liberty Council mailing.
 8/31-9/2/99
           Herbert questions Cisewski under oath. Cisewski is unable to explain how the "seed" received the
           Liberty Council mailing. He speculates it must be part of a conspiracy against him. Under the
           terms of the protective order and later settlement agreement, Cisewski requires that parts of the
           deposition [matters relating to his personal finances] be sealed.
 Fall 1999
           Discovery period ends without Cisewski or Godfrey ever having exercised their rights to view
           LNC records or question LPHQ employees. The parties await trial in the Spring of 2000.
 9/99-3/00
           We propose a settlement, which after long delays, Cisewski accepts in principle. However, prior
           to signature Cisewski backs out a number of times, but finally signs on terms virtually identical to
           those proposed by us in the Fall of 1999.
 3/00
           The Court enters an order approving a settlement agreement in which we and Cisewski agree:
           1. Cisewski, Monticello Group and Liberty Council (collectively, "Defendants") admit they
           breached their contract for LNC mailing list use by reusing the mailing list.
           2. The lawsuit was conducted in a procedurally fair manner and they have not been coerced or
           intimidated into the settlement.
           3. Defendants will never again use the LNC mailing list.
           4. Defendants may work with Libertarian candidates and state parties, but any LP mailing list use
           for them must be controlled by LPHQ or designated mailing houses.
           5. Defendants will pay $1,000 in damages now and $10,000 five years from now.
           6. Defendants will pay $25,000 in damages if they misuse the mailing list again, or breach the
           terms of the settlement.
All told, the LNC paid $48,440.43 to Herbert for the legal services he provided. We feel that he did a fine job
handling the lawsuit. While if we had known pursuing the matter would have cost so much we might have acted
differently (perhaps, by taking a harder line with Cisewski, rather than bending over backward at every turn to
give him the benefit of the doubt), we did accomplish our primary purposes of: (1) obtaining a permanent
injunction against any further use of the LP mailing list by Cisewski; (2) obtaining an admission that Cisewski did
misuse the mailing list; and (3) establishing severe sanctions against any future misuse by Cisewski.

This Settlement Agreement (hereinafter "Agreement") is made and entered
into between the Libertarian National Committee, Inc. (sometimes
referred to herein as "plaintiff" or "LNC") and Gene A. Cisewski, The
Monticello Group Ltd. and the Liberty Council (sometimes referred to
herein as "defendants)."

WHEREAS, the parties to Libertarian National Committee, Inc. v. Gene A.
Cisewski, The Monticello Group Ltd., and the Liberty Council, Civ.
Action No. 99-991, now pending in the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia, wish to resolve this litigation voluntarily;

NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed in return for good and valuable
consideration, as follows:

1. The LNC, Gene A. Cisewski, The Monticello Group Ltd., and the
Liberty Council stipulate that the evidence in this case establishes
the following facts:

a. For purposes of this Agreement, the term "LNC Data Base" refers to a
data base maintained by the LNC that contains the names, addresses, and
other information regarding of current and former members of the
Libertarian Party, donors to the Libertarian Party, and individuals who
have sought information concerning the Libertarian Party and its
principles.

b. As a result of a mass mailing by The Monticello Group, Mr. Cisewski
had physical access to a copy of the LNC Data Base that contained
fictitious "seeded" names, when the diskettes that were used for a
December 1997 mailing for the Institute for Humane Studies were
returned to Mr. Cisewski.

c. One of the fictitious seeded names that was included on the LNC Data
Base to which Mr. Cisewski and the other defendants had access was that
of "Robert Johnson." The address shown as that of "Robert Johnson" was
in fact that of Daniel Smith (then an LNC employee), and mail that was
sent to the address shown for "Robert Johnson" would ordinarily be
delivered to Daniel Smith.

d. The seeded name and address of "Robert Johnson" was included in a
mass mailing for fund-raising purposes by the Liberty Council in August
or September 1998.

e. Mr. Cisewski and the other defendants cannot provide any evidence
that explains how the seeded name and address of "Robert Johnson" came
to be included in the Liberty Council's mass mailing in August or
September of 1998.

2. Gene A. Cisewski and the other defendants stipulate that Mr.
Cisewski and The Monticello Group breached the November 24, 1997
contract with the LNC, in which Mr. Cisewski and The Monticello Group
agreed that there would be no re-use of the LNC Data Base, by utilizing
information from the LNC Data Base in the August-September 1998 Liberty
Council mailings, as alleged in Count III of the Complaint in LNC v.
Cisewski, et al.

3. Gene A. Cisewski and the other defendants stipulate that the case of
LNC v. Cisewski, et al., has been conducted in a procedurally fair
manner, and that the LNC entered into a confidentiality agreement that
protected Cisewski's personal privacy rights and defendants'
confidential business information. Mr. Cisewski and the other
defendants further stipulate that they have not been coerced or
intimidated into agreeing to the resolution of this case, and that they
have had the same opportunity as the LNC to discover evidence relevant
to the issue in the case.

4. Gene A. Cisewski, the Monticello Group, and the Liberty Council
agree never to obtain or utilize the LNC Data Base for any purpose,
including any use of the LNC Data Base on behalf of any other person or
entity. This provision does not preclude Mr. Cisewski and the other
defendants from entering into agreements with any state Libertarian
Party for the right to use the state Party's own mailing lists, even if
such mailing lists incorporate a portion of the LNC Data Base.

5. The LNC agrees that this Agreement does not preclude Mr. Cisewski or
the other defendants from engaging in fundraising, training, or
campaign consultant or management services for Libertarian causes and
candidates. Clients who wish to utilize such services provided by one
or more of the defendants and who wish to rent the LNC Data Base can do
so, but any mailings on behalf of such clients of defendants would be
handled directly by the LNC or by the following three mail houses
(without any access by Mr. Cisewski to the LNC Data Base):

   Accumail (located in Landover, Maryland)
   Dataplex (located in Woodbridge, Virginia)
   Brick Mill Studios, Inc. (located in Nashua, New Hampshire)

Mr. Cisewski may request that additional mail houses be permitted to
handle mailings on behalf of clients of defendants who have rented the
LNC Data Base. The LNC will consider such requests in good faith and
will not unreasonably withhold permission to add additional mail
houses, taking into account its interest in ensuring the integrity of
its data base and the necessity of guaranteeing that any mail house
utilized maintains adequate security measures to prevent defendants
from obtaining access to the LNC Data Base.

6. Gene A. Cisewski and the other defendants agree not to make any
statements to any person that are inconsistent with the factual
recitations in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of this Agreement. Mr. Cisewski
and the other defendants may not claim or imply that the deposition
that was taken from him in this case (including the confidential
portions thereof and deposition exhibits) or any other documents or
information available to defendants contains (a) any evidence of
wrongdoing relating to the LNC Data Base by any other person or (b) any
evidence that is inconsistent with the factual recitations in
paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of this Agreement. Mr. Cisewski and the other
defendants may not claim or imply that this Agreement (or any other
Agreement with plaintiff) prevents them from speaking truthfully about
the legal or factual issues relating to LNC v. Cisewski, et al. So long
as the provisions of this paragraph are complied with, Mr. Cisewski and
the other defendants may respond to inquiries about this case or this
Agreement by declining to comment or by referring the inquiring party
to the transcript of Mr. Cisewski's deposition.

7. Because the full damages resulting from any breach of paragraphs 4
and 6 of this Agreement are inherently difficult to determine, and not
as a penalty, the defendants jointly and severally agree to pay
liquidated damages in the amount of $25,000 for each proven violation
of any of the obligations imposed by paragraphs 4 and 6 of this
Agreement. If any defendant is found to have violated any if the
obligations imposed by paragraphs 4 and 6 of this Agreement, the LNC
shall be entitled to recover the costs, including attorneys' fees, that
were reasonably incurred in enforcing the obligations arising under
paragraphs 4 or 6 (including recovery of liquidated damages as provided
herein). Defendants agree that any threatened or imminent violations of
the obligations imposed by paragraphs 4 or 6 of this Agreement will
cause irreparable harm to the LNC and agree that injunctive relief to
prevent such relief would properly be issued by a court of competent
jurisdiction. Such right to injunctive relief is in addition to any
other remedies available to plaintiff for the violation of this
Agreement, including, but not limited to sanctions for violation of the
Consent Judgment to be entered by the Court.

8. Simultaneously with this execution of this Agreement, Gene A.
Cisewski will pay one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) to the LNC, in the
form of a certified check payable to the LNC.

9. Simultaneously with the execution of this Agreement, Gene A.
Cisewski and the other defendants will sign the promissory note
attached hereto as Attachment A, under which they agree, jointly and
severally, to pay ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) to the LNC within
five years of Mr. Cisewski's execution of this Agreement.

10. Within ten business days after all parties have executed this
Agreement, the parties will jointly move the District of Columbia
Superior Court for entry of a Consent Judgment in the case of
Libertarian National Committee, Inc. v. Gene A. Cisewski, The
Monticello Group Ltd., and the Liberty Council, Civ. Action No. 99-991,
pursuant to which this case will be dismissed with prejudice, such
dismissal to be contingent upon entry of a permanent injunction
prohibiting defendants (and any persons working in concert with
defendants) from any future utilization of the LNC Data Base for any
purpose (except where the LNC itself or one of the mail houses
designated pursuant to paragraph 5 arranges for and handles the
mailing). The parties' joint motion shall be in the form attached
hereto as Attachment B.

11. This Agreement is not confidential. The deposition taken from Gene
A. Cisewski in this suit is also not confidential, with the exception
of those portions of the deposition and deposition exhibits designated
in Attachment C hereto as relating to the confidential business and/or
personal affairs of Mr. Cisewski. The parties agree that all portions
of Mr. Cisewski's deposition that relate to the LNC "seeds" and their
utilization or non-utilization by defendants have not been designated
as confidential and may be made available to third parties.

12. This Agreement shall become effective on the date when all parties
have executed this Agreement.

13. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding between the
parties. This Agreement may be modified only by a writing signed by all
parties.

14. The parties acknowledge that they have carefully read and fully
understand all the provisions of this Agreement and that they have not
relied upon any representation or statement, written or oral, not set
forth in this Agreement.

15. The parties represent and agree (a) that they have consulted with
their respective counsel before executing this Agreement, (b) that they
fully understand their rights to discuss and receive advice on all
aspects of this Agreement with their attorney, (c) that they have
availed themselves of this right, and (d) that they are knowingly and
voluntarily entering into this Agreement and agree to be bound by the
terms thereof.

16. All parties were represented by counsel during the negotiation and
drafting of this Agreement. This Agreement shall therefore be deemed to
be drafted equally by the parties.

17. This Agreement and performance hereunder shall be governed by the
laws of the District of Columbia without reference to the choice of law
rules thereof or, where applicable, federal law. The parties agree that
any litigation concerning this agreement will be brought in the
District of Columbia and stipulate to personal jurisdiction in the
District of Columbia.

18. If any action at law or in equity is brought to enforce or
interpret the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be
entitled to all costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney fees
incurred, and interest, in addition to any other relief to which he or
it may be entitled.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as
of the date shown below.

So AGREED:

[signed by Dasbach 25 February and Ciseswki 8 March]
   ++++

Subject: Re: SLS: Abolitionist and gradualist
Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 23:38:38 -0700
From: "M Iddings" <marids@jps.net> (by way of "George L. O'Brien" <obiewan@mail.doitnow.com>)
      Rick Tompkins <<mailto:spooner@mail.doitnow.com>spooner@mail.doitnow.com>
on April 29, 1998 8:38 AM wrote:
>
>Some of us are not so much concerned with those who choose different ways
>of fighting the battle as we are toward the underhanded, lying, fraudulent
>methods used by the con-artist types who are more interested in lining
>their pockets than in achieving progress toward liberty.
    I can second that!
    The movement has been afflicted by both an abolitionist with a rent-controlled NYC pied-a-terre and a gradualist who hawked a sort of Dale Carnegie-esque 'sucker 'em into liberty' course. Frauds cloak themselves in any guise, gradualist or abolitionist, that their marks will accept without question.
    Communities of people who self-identify as members of the same cause are particularly susceptible to being targets of frauds who also claim allegiance to the cause. Mormons were targets of con artists in the late '70s and early '80s because they were likely to be very trusting of anyone who also professed to be a Mormon. I've seen this same phenomenon within the LP.
     The LP's low activist retention rate means there are few among its ranks who have been around long enough to remember a particular con artist's last attempt to troll for marks. The LP's high turnover means there's a continuously renewed supply of new marks. Finally, O'Brien's observation that Gresham's law can be extended to activism (bad activists drive out good activists) implies that the principled long-term activists who would warn newcomers of the reputations of underhanded, untrustworthy folk are displaced by the unprincipled, corner-cutters who tolerate (and even expect to personally benefit from) such shady characters.
     I wish the few good people left in the LP lots of luck in remaking the LP's target-rich environment enjoyed by the frauds within it. I suspect the nationwide LP's hunger to boost its membership count which floods the rolls of affiliate parties with newcomers is the greatest source of the problem.
    Affiliate parties have difficulties, true, but once an activist base stays in being for a whole US Presidential election cycle there's a certain degree of stability and organizational memory in place. (Because California's LP affiliate party is located in such a large and populous state, it resembles the nationwide LP organ with its problems more than it resembles a typical LP statewide affiliate party.) Higher retention and a more discriminating recruitment of newcomers is probably the best chance of reversing the three conditions that make the present LP apparatus so troubled by fraudulent characters.
    I admit there's an attraction to juicing up the membership rolls in order to show ever larger numbers. But after over a quarter-century, the LP's oft-trumpeted claim of being America's Fastest Growing Third Party sounds phony to any numerate person. It's time to abandon the old illusions.

Sent: Monday, April 24, 2000 7:35 PM
To: Subscriber
 Subject: A personal message from Perry Willis
 L i b e r t y W i r e
 |*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|
          A personal message from Perry Willis Campaign Manager, Browne for President
          I regret to inform you that as of Friday, April 21, the Harry Browne for President campaign has suspended most of its operations. We are cutting expenses in the hope that we can catch up on our bills, but if the present is any guide to the future, it is possible the campaign is over.
          Our fund-raising has been declining since Jacob Hornberger began his latest series of attacks against Harry Browne and the LP leadership. We have been falling further and further behind on our bills, and it has reached the point where we cannot continue.
          Any national campaign must live from fund-raising letter to fund-raising letter. It must keep using every dollar available to push its public outreach.
          Unlike a business, we can't legally borrow money. In addition, we have no assets other than our office equipment and our contributor list -- andwe have only about 8,000 contributors. Moreover, to mail a fund-raising appeal to the LP membership, we must pay for the list in advance and schedule our mailing so it won't conflict with the LP's own fund-raising efforts. Despite the fact that Mr. Browne has raised tens of thousands of dollars to help recruit new LP members, he has no more access to these names than any other Libertarian; in fact, unlike outside organizations, he has to pay in advance for the names.
          In short, our campaign's only assets are our reputation and the good will of our supporters.
          Unfortunately, our reputation within the LP has been damaged to the point where the good will of a significant segment of the rank and file now seems lacking, causing our latest fund-raising effort to fall short and put us in a very deep hole. Specifically, our motivations for wanting to challenge the FEC laws have been called into doubt, causing the direct-mail appeal based on that challenge to fail.
          Obviously, not everyone could have been expected to agree with the FEC strategy we were considering. But instead of simply offering arguments against the value of the strategy, Mr. Hornberger and his allies have seized on the possibility that we have considered challenging the FEC laws only to hide financial improprieties. And many people either have believed Mr. Hornberger's assertions or have had sufficient doubts about us to stop contributing to our campaign.
          Needless to say, the FEC challenge is no longer a possibility, and we will file our FEC reports next week. Mr. Hornberger and his associates have forced us to bow to the will of the state. Ironically, filing reports with the government may turn out to be the final act of this campaign.
          In addition to his email attacks and his prodding the FEC about our potential challenge, Mr. Hornberger has mailed hit pieces to several of our major donors. The name and address of at least one of these donors could have been known to Mr. Hornberger only through one source -- our 1996 FEC reports. No wonder Mr. Hornberger is so adamant that we disclose contributor information to the government. But I don't see how this helps the Libertarian Party or the libertarian movement.
              The FEC Challenge
          We believed that the FEC challenge had the potential to achieve two valuable goals.
          1. It had the ability to generate publicity about the campaign that was related to our issues, whereas some other media event might have detracted from our basic message. Although we haven't been trying to publicize the challenge, preferring to wait until we were sure we were going to proceed with it, the word has gotten around. Several journalists have indicated that they wanted to write about it if we went ahead. And Harry has been asked about it on several radio shows. His reply to the question "Why would you do this?" takes him easily to our issues:
         "Because it's the only way we have of letting people know there's a party -- the Libertarians -- who want to free you from the income tax, unlock the door and let you out of Social Security, and end the insane War on Drugs. The campaign contribution limits keep us from raising the kind of money necessary to get that message to you and the American people."
          2. If we could win the case (which would probably take at least a couple of years), it would open up enormous possibilities for the LP. We would be able to attract larger sums of money for advertising that could take our message to the American people. Because our message is positive and the messages of the old parties negative, it doesn't matter how much additional money they get to raise and spend; the important issue is how much more _we_ can raise and spend to let people know there's an alternative. And the very fact that we would become free from the current limits would encourage many people to support us -- people who now don't think we can ever change anything.
          Based on the reaction to our March 12 email message about the FEC challenge, it appeared that a large percentage of Libertarians would enthusiastically support the challenge. But Mr. Hornberger's attacks changed all that, and perhaps scuttled the entire campaign as well. (Note: we have paid $15,000 of the $25,000 required for the legal research. We intend to complete the research and publish a summary of the results, in the hope that some future campaign will be able to use the information.)
          As I said, we will file the FEC reports next week. But, as we have promised, we are providing in this message a more detailed accounting of how we have spent your money.
          Perhaps more important, this message will tell you what the money has achieved.
          This message also will provide an introductory course in the trials and travails of running a national third-party campaign, as well as discuss the plans we had for the future. You can think of this as our campaign report, in case it turns out that we won't be writing one later.
          In addition, all payments to vendors and employees are listed at the end of this report. You can see how much every payee has received. There also is a list of our current debts.
          Please forgive the length of this report. But after due consideration, I believe it would be incomplete if we omitted any part of it.
              Running a National Campaign
          If you are running for a local office, such as for city council or state representative, you can do so without a lot of money, if necessary. You can speak at various clubs and go door to door -- personally meeting a significant number, possibly even a majority, of the potential voters. This is known as retail politics, and it is very appropriate for a local campaign.
          Running a statewide or national campaign is quite different, however. Meeting voters personally may seem like a good idea, but you can't hope to attract more than a few thousand votes -- at the very most -- that way. Even giving speeches carries your message to an insignificant number of voters, unless the press and TV cameras are paying attention to your speeches. When you see a Republican or Democratic presidential candidate on TV giving a speech, shaking hands outside a factory, or flipping pancakes in a coffee shop, remember that he's doing it only because you and hundreds of thousands of others are watching him on TV. If the cameras weren't rolling, he wouldn't be there.
          A national campaign based on meeting voters in person and speaking engagements alone is doomed to achieve no more than a few hundred thousand votes. To seek millions of votes requires wholesale politics. That means widespread advertising, especially television advertising, as well as personal appearances on radio and TV, where you can be heard by tens of thousands of potential voters at a time. A national campaign also requires leveraged contacts -- such as gaining the support of various groups who will transmit your message to many people, recruiting thousands of volunteers to help publicize your candidacy, enlisting Internet sites, and using any other transmission belts you can locate.
          Running a political campaign also is considerably different from running a business. In many cases, a business can evolve over however long it takes to succeed. A campaign has a finite ending point and everything you're going to do has to be achieved by that date. A business can wait for the right moment to spring its marketing projects. But a campaign must be continually active. When it isn't persuading voters, it must be recruiting supporters to help you persuade voters. It must continually raise money to pay its bills, and it must continually spend the money it raises -- trying to take advantage of every opportunity there is.
          A campaign that isn't financially stretched to the limit at all times isn't aggressive enough to reach whatever goals it has set. In this report, I'll explain what this means in our case.
              Income & Outgo
          The Harry Browne for President Committee was formed in December of 1996. It has been in operation for a little over 3 years and 3 months. Through February 29, we raised and spent $1,231,210.75.
          The campaign has spent 57% of its income on campaign outreach, 17% on overhead, and 26% on fund-raising. It is typical for fund-raising to cost a campaign about 34%, so we have done very well in this area. In addition, campaigns tend to raise most of their money in the final four months, so it's reasonable to expect that the overhead and fund-raising percentages would drop and the outreach percentage would rise.
          Also, it's important to realize that overhead is the first expense incurred. As the campaign becomes more successful, overhead has to rise as well. But it doesn't rise nearly as fast as fund-raising increases. So the more money raised, the higher percentage of it goes into outreach. And with a much larger Libertarian donor base, we expected to spend many times as much on advertising this year as we did in 1996.
          <<10 pages of financial details following deleted>>

To:  James Lark, Chair, Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
Cc:  LNC colleagues, State Chairs, LP members and friends:

        After a great deal of contemplation, I have decided to resign my position as Treasurer of the Libertarian National Committee.
        This is effective at 8am on Saturday, April 21st 2001, which is the start of our next scheduled Committee meeting.  I've chosen that date so that a replacement can be named at that meeting, and request that the item "Naming of new Treasurer" be placed on the agenda directly after the Chair's remarks early in the day.
        I strongly suggest that the position not be left unfilled for any period of time.
        To insure a smooth transition to whomever the Committee elects to replace me,  I today name Dr. Deryl W. Martin (currently Region 7 representative on the LNC) of Tennessee as LNC Assistant Treasurer.  Dr. Martin has a strong academic and financial background, impeccable integrity, and is well suited     to take on this role while I transition out over the next few weeks.   I expect he'll be working closely with the staff and me during that time.
        Also as of April 21st, I revoke my membership certification ("the pledge") and cancel my life membership in the LP.  I'll address the reasons for my decision in a separate message next month, but *please* be assured I'm not leaving for another party.
        I've greatly enjoyed my 6 years or so on the National Committee, the three public offices I've held as an LP member, and my 21 years in the movement & the Party.
        Most of all, I look forward to maintaining the close friendships with many of you that my wife Karin & I have developed over the years.
        I wish you well.
        Sincerely,
        Mark A. Tuniewicz
        Libertarian Party national Treasurer

P.S.  This email address will no longer be active after April 21st.

    FYI.....
    Just in case you had not seen this elsewhere:
    Mr. Tuniewicz is one of the four elected officers of the LNC, and has both fiduciary and legal responsibility for the state of our party's financial reports.
    That a hired staffer at ANY level would neglect - indeed, appear to refuse - to provide such reports in a timely manner on an ongoing basis would appear to be cause of immediate dismissal.
    That the other elected members of the LNC's Executive Committee appear not to have required prompt compliance with routine procedure raises an interesting question:
    Why's in charge here?  The LP's board of directors, or the hired staffers?
Ken Sturzenacker [Then Chair of  LP Pennsylvania]

At 05:43 AM 4/5/2001 EDT, NHLiberty@aol.com wrote:
 Steve Dasbach, National Director
 Mark Tuniewicz, Treasurer
 Continued non-receipt of financial information
 Libertarian National Committee

    At the Executive Committee teleconference held in February of 2001,  I let you know that the end of your Director's report that I hadn't been receiving my normal weekly financial information for at least the 3 weeks prior.  You said you would check with Nick Dunbar as to the status and that you'd take care of it.
    At March's EC teleconference, I again pointed out that I STILL had yet to receive this reporting, now about 8 weeks behind.  I expressed this in the context of our discussion regarding the new monthly reporting package that the EC was in the process of developing.  You again cited the need to speak with Mr. Dunbar, and had no other explanation.
    Steve, it's April, and I STILL haven't received these simple, system-generated reports.  In my opinion, there is just no excuse for this...It is simply outrageous!    I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't attempt to pass off responsibility for this to others. You are responsible for insuring that this information is provided on a timely basis.
    While I recently announced my resignation effective later this month, all of these events took place prior to that announcement.  I plan on continuing my oversight responsibilities up until then, which obviously include review of financial information.  You should also be aware that my inability to carry out my responsibilities as Treasurer due to this situation was one key factor in my recent decision to resign.  I can't do my job when you can't (or won't)
provide me with the information I specifically and repeatedly request to do so.
    For the Committee's information, there have been MANY instances during my tenure as Treasurer when my weekly reporting has been 1, 2, or even 3 weeks late.  This was repeatedly discussed by members of the executive committee under Mr. Bergland's administration.
    There have also been repeated instances of our monthly financial information being provided very late to the LNC, and periods of many months on end when regular providing of monthly revenue and expense information to state chairs did not take place.  This is a longstanding problem that Mr. Dasbach has been made aware of previously.
     Steve, I've attempted to be understanding about those situations, which I consider to be sloppy and unprofessional at best, and incompetent at worst. I've been hesitant to raise this issue strongly in the past because of our friendship and close working relationship.
     But this most recent string of events is, in my view, serious enought to easily be considered just cause for termination because of the clear inattention to an important job responsibility after repeated notifications to correct same.
      I urge you to reconsider your position as National Director.  LNC members, state chairs, and members are concerned, as am I.

Mark Tuniewicz
Treasurer
Libertarian National Committee, Inc.

(Note: National Director Steve Dasbach has a long explanation for why these problems occured.  Contact him for details.)

At 12:04 PM 4/6/01 -0700, Mark F. Murphy wrote:
>Too bad Mr. Tuniewicz didn't hop on a plane, go to the office and get the
>data he required.
>When one has staff (as the Treasurer has at his disposal), one needs to
>interface with them.
>While Mr. Dasbach should have been helpful here since he is a full timer
>and paid staff, I think the Treasurer should have exercised his authority
>in the matter.

        It is not as simple as that.  When David Bergland was chair he forbade Mr Tuniewicz from interfacing directly with the staff and/or the accountants and/or the FEC consultants.  This is when he should have resigned.  Instead he accepted the prohibition and even ran for re-election without asking the convention delegates to verify his authority in this matter.  This prohibition was not formally objected to by Mr. Tuniewicz or any other LNC member.  Later, when Mr. Lark became chair this policy was not rescinded.   Mr. Tuniewicz  seems to have tried  quiet diplomacy which did not work and finally decided to resign.
       While Mr. Tuniewicz could be faulted for not acting more assertively, the rest of the LNC is just as much at fault for not realizing that the situation was intollerable.

  JWLark>Indeed, you asked me twice whether I would rescind Mr. Bergland's prohibition should I be elected (on Feb. 9, 2000 during a telephone conversation, and on March 10, 2000 during a conversation in Chicago the night before the beginning of an LNC meeting).  In both cases I told you that you were  welcome to have contact with anyone you needed to contact.  Do you remember my telling you this?>>

  Yes.  I think we covered this fact during an LNC meeting as well.

  JWLark>More importantly, did I hinder you at any time in the performance of your responsibilities as treasurer?  Did you say anything to Mr. Famularo or anyone else that would have given him the wrong impression about my position on the matter?>>

  No, and no.  I have been consistent in my representations, Jim.

  Mark Tuniewicz

Subject:  Re: LNC Manual Conflict on Noncompliance FEC/etc regulations??
Date:      Fri, 30 Nov 2001 09:33:56 -0600
From:     thomaslknapp@yahoo.com
To:        LPUS-MISC@dehnbase.org (LP business - miscellaneous discussion)

On 29 Nov 2001, at 19:01, TCS wrote:
<non-essential quotes deleted>
      The suggestion _has_ been made -- I don't know how accurate the imputation might be -- that it was, in fact, the treasurer's liability under law that led to this.